Category Archives: Workers Compensation

Attorneys Christopher Major and Glenn Johnston lead a presentation on Section 29 reimbursement and subrogation in New York workers’ compensation claims. The attorneys discuss reimbursement to the carrier/employer from the proceeds of civil actions as well as tactics for maximizing recovery – including negotiation tips for dealing with plaintiff’s attorneys who always demand a lien reduction to “1/3rd.”

On October 30, 2017, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in D’Angelo v. Archdiocese of Newark, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (22pp.) issued a written decision affirming a prior compensation judge’s ruling that the petitioner was permanently and totally disabled from the last accident.

Michael Gervolino, Esq.The New Jersey Workers Compensation Act specifies that in the case of total disability, the petitioner is entitled to payments for a period of up until 450 weeks. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(b). If the petitioner perishes as a result of his workers compensation injury, the Act provides us with guidance for the petitioner’s dependents at the time of death. For example, in the case of a surviving spouse, the Act directs us to N.J.S.A. 34:15-13(j), which states that the surviving spouse shall receive payments for the “entire period of survivorship or until such surviving spouse shall remarry.” See N.J.S.A. 34:15-13(j).

In the case of children as dependents, the plain language of N.J.S.A. 34:15-13 tells us that us that they are entitled to payments up until the age of 18, unless they are physically or mentally deficient which would allow them to collect on the “full compensation period of 450 weeks.” See N.J.S.A. 34:15-13(i). The plain meaning of this statue leads one to interpret the language as limiting disabled dependents to 450 weeks of compensation following the death of the petitioner, unless they are a surviving spouse.

Attorneys Karen Vincent and Greg Lois discuss the role of defense counsel in providing timely and accurate exposure analysis to clients. The attorneys discuss the “when” of providing an exposure analysis – when during the litigation lifecycle the attorney should be providing estimates of exposure and likelihood of prevailing at trial. The attorneys also discuss the “how” of exposure – how estimates of permanent disability are made. This webinar presentation is a must-watch for risk professionals and adjusters relying on outside counsel to provide exposure analysis.

The day before Thanksgiving the Board released new proposed Guidelines – and these are not great for employers. But wait, what about the draft Guidelines that were issued in September and we were so excited for? Those Guidelines, widely viewed as favorable to carrier and employers as they appeared designed to curtail the worst abuses of the current impairment determination guidelines, have been scrapped.

The new proposed Guidelines are here. When you check them out it will be clear that the old “range of motion” system that the Board was supposed to scrap and start over from has returned. The whole point of the April 2017 statutory reform was that the Board had to adopt updated Scheduled Loss of Use guidelines that reflected “medical advances” (i.e., better outcomes for basic injuries) and were supposed to address the fact that employees with minor injuries, with little or no impact on their working ability, were collecting giant SLU awards, often with only a few days of lost time (which goes to show that there really wasn’t any impact on their working ability). Instead, the Board has caved into pressure from union and “pro-worker” groups (read: trial attorneys representing workers and collecting fat fees) and issued new Guidelines that are bad for businesses and carriers.

Why is this a big deal?

The Board must adopt new Guidelines for Determining Impairment in Schedule Loss of Use cases (think fingers, hands, wrists, elbows, shoulders, knees, ankles, feet, toes) which will take effect on January 2, 2018. The first proposed impairment guidelines were a departure from the prior practice before the Board – in a good way! The initial draft was favorable to employers in that the most frustrating and unfair cases – where the claimant loses minimal time from work for a Schedule Loss of Use Injury (meaning, a minor injury) would result in giant Scheduled Loss of Use awards based on range of motion testing. In those cases, where there was neglible (if any) impact on the claimant’s working ability, it is patently unfair that the employer must pay large Schedule Loss of Use awards based on turn of the century medical guidelines that don’t reflect anything more than subjective range of motion tests. These latest draft guidelines bring back that old range of motion system.

What can we do about it?

The proposed Guidelines are now in “comment period.” Comments can be made here. The Board was clearly persuaded by the flood of comments from the unions and trial attorneys – we are recommending that our clients review the “new” Guidelines and make comments urging the Board to adopt the first proposed impairment guideline.

Hours & Info (New York)

Hours & Info (New Jersey Office)

Where we go

We regularly appear in New York City courts and all New Jersey courts.

All Metro NYC Hearing Points and surrounds:

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

White Plains

Garden City

Hauppauge

Downstate Hearing Points

Hudson

Newburgh (New Windsor)

New City

Poughkeepsie

All appeals (Albany)

New Jersey Regular Hearing Lists in all courts:

Atlantic City

Bridgeton

Camden

Elizabeth

Freehold

Hackensack

Lebanon

Jersey City

Mount Holly

Mount Arlington

Newark

New Brunswick

Paterson

Toms River

Trenton

Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Defense Base Act

New York District Office

OAL - Cherry Hill, NJ

2nd & 3rd Cir.

Disclaimer

This website is not legal advice! The materials presented by this website are for informational purposes only and are not offered as legal advice as to any particular matter. No reader should act on the basis of these materials without seeking appropriate professional advice as to the particular facts and applicable law involved. The materials are not represented to be correct, complete, or up-to-date. Opinions presented by this web site are the opinions of the author. Neither the use of this web site nor the transfer of information to or from this web site shall create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between Greg Lois or LOIS LLC and any person. You should not send any confidential information to this web site until after you have entered into a written agreement for the performance of legal services.